I think it's obvious that Hillary Clinton is running straight into the sexist glass ceiling, and a lot of people in the media don't like that. My contention was never with the claim that Hillary Clinton had been attacked on sexist grounds, but rather on the notion that Clinton had been attacked more for her gender than Obama had been for his race. I don't think such a matter can be so easily stated, and it certainly cannot be proven by a video showing only anti-Clinton clips.

Not even if you use Wagner in the background.

Every Prius should be equipped with a device that could be used by the driver to make a loud noise to alert any blind pedestrians? I would suggest using some kind of horn, and having its trigger be next to the left foot. Better yet - the steering wheel!

Just what are the "goalposts for Iraq", welcomerain? 'Cause Bush said we had already won this war five years ago. It seems odd to accuse "Democrats" for moving goalposts when that has been the entire m.o. for the Bush operation for years.

Remember when Americans were going to be greated as liberators?

Remember how Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs?

Remember how the war was going to pay for itself?

Pathetic.

Imagine the cheek of Obama! He's happy to play by the rules since the rules have him ahead.

Just what are you smoking?

Let's try the contrapositive here: the Clinton camp is interested in any way to "re-interpret" the rules so she would appear to be in the lead.

Brilliant!

Mind you, Wilentz isn't arguing that Clinton has gotten more votes than Obama: she hasn't. He's arguing that Clinton should be ahead even though she hasn't gotten more votes than Obama, since the Democratic party should use a "winner-takes-all" system, in spite of the obvious fact that such a system makes it far easier for the less popular candidate to win. Clinton's candidacy would make a neat example for this bizarro universe that Wilentz wants.

It seems strange to focus on Leno and Letterman when The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are clearly driving forces in news satire these days. Why are they so successful? Because the news media is doing such a horrid, horrid job simply reporting the news. Major media have become so focused on their profit-making mission that they've lost pretty much all of their journalistic function.

I realize that sounds like a cliche, but the news media really outpace their satirists in their race to emobdy the cliches. Or did we really need more coverage about Obama's bowling score than the Iraq war last week?

I agree with the general sentiment of other commenters that it makes no sense to try to generalize the current race to be something as simple as "a white woman" against "a black man". That's not what's going on. What we have is a race between a specific black man and a specific white woman. And it's in the public news every day. It is impossible to ask poll respondents how they feel about this generic issue when the specific issue is on the minds of every voter at all times. Or rather, I should say, it is impossible to accurately address this issue.

As for the claims that Clinton has suffered from "sexist attacks"...Obama has also suffered from racist attacks. It seems an invitation to indulge in bias to try to say which of the two has been faced with greater intensity of attack.

The more you treat the voters like idiots, the more your support erodes.

Everybody knows that FL and MI broke the rules. Everybody knows breaking rules has consequences. Trying to pretend that it was all legitimate after the fact is pathetic. Not only is Clinton on flimsy legal and ethical ground, the more she tries to weasel her way in through tactics like this and the superdelegate nonsense, the more she reinforces her public image as the ultimate cynic who believes in nothing.

And that's why Obama has been beating her soundly.

There is absolutely no practical path where this tactic could actually work for Clinton. But her camp doesn't care how much damage they do to the party as a whole - they are reduced to desperation tactics and that's all they care about.

And, BTW, Fox is still run by a Republican operative and active campaigner, right?

It's a bad question. When will we hear questions about John McCain and his unpatriotic associations? There are preachers who support him who are just as "divisive" and "unpatriotic" as Wright.

I love this phrase. It lets a person imply that something is wrong without being required to explain exactly why they think that way.

Freedoms always open the door to exploitation. Just ask your minimum wage worker. The answer is not to constrain freedom.